User 463088
Banned
Why in the hell is he doing this? It's asinine. He cannot let her run huge margins in moderator contested States like Virginia or Texas. Lord. If I'd donated to him if he livid.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
the problem with that is that Hillary is winning states later she won last time like OH and what massbus1999 said.
maabus1999
Member
I believe there is NO same day registration in CO, so that is a big road block for Sanders demographic wise. So I doubt there will be a CO blowout.
Mass he may do well but I haven't seen any polling to match what he did in NH yet.
User 463088
Banned
I think he could win Massachusetts, but there is no way her get a double digit win there. Same with Colorado due to no same day registration. So he nets a few more delegates than she does in those states but there is no way he can make up the Georgia or Texas margins. Those wind would be nothing more than optical victories.
QuiteWhittle
Member
Sanders is conceding the South.
Glad Clinton isn't conceding anything. Blow Sanders out in the South and keep margins respectable in the 85% white states.
Jesus Christ this gives a new definition to word "triggered". Who the fuck thinks its a good idea to allow people who are frequently experimenting with drugs (alcohol, etc.) and don't have fully formed brains the ability to carry guns on campus?
http://www.coloradodems.org/action/caucus-2016
For the Colorado caucuses:
- No same day voter registration at the door.
- Need to have registered as a Democrat by January 4th, 2016.
- No 17 year olds allowed. Need to have turned 18 two months before March 1st to participate.
Even in Sanders' best state of New Hampshire, Democratic voters were essentially tied between he and Clinton when he won by over 20%. It's not going to be a blowout. Clinton also has a good ground game in the state now too.
For the Colorado caucuses:
- No same day voter registration at the door.
- Need to have registered as a Democrat by January 4th, 2016.
- No 17 year olds allowed. Need to have turned 18 two months before March 1st to participate.
Even in Sanders' best state of New Hampshire, Democratic voters were essentially tied between he and Clinton when he won by over 20%. It's not going to be a blowout. Clinton also has a good ground game in the state now too.
The Texas State Legislature from the looks of it, or as I like to call them: morons.
Welp, that's that I suppose.
Damn son. Can Clinton actually win in CO?
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
It might strike a chord with voters.
I still think he needs to hammer home the, "See? Look at all the money these PACs and donors are wasting on a guy who barely shows up to work. Talk about welfare!" line with Rubio.
BoboBrazil
Member
We don't need a right of center Justice. The republicans have shown not to work with Democrats so why should he concede and put someone like that in the court? Working with them is pointless especially in something that's a lifetime position. If they don't want to approve his nominee, they will be forced to when Hillary takes office.
Macho Madness
Member
So the Sanders plan was
1. Win Nevada
2. Hope the momentum carries to reduce Clinton lead in other states, increase lead in Sandera states
3. Win nomination
The alternate path was:
1. Lose Nevada
2. ??????
3. Win?
Devine and Weaver are the shits and Sanders either doesn't realize it or it's too late. (It's too late).
1. Win Nevada
2. Hope the momentum carries to reduce Clinton lead in other states, increase lead in Sandera states
3. Win nomination
The alternate path was:
1. Lose Nevada
2. ??????
3. Win?
Devine and Weaver are the shits and Sanders either doesn't realize it or it's too late. (It's too late).
I think it's more possible than people are thinking. Minnesota is a lost cause though.
And remember that Colorado is a state that Clinton lost 2:1 back in 2008.
Eh, I kind of get what Sanders is trying to do. He wants to be able to say that he fought to 6-5 states (he won't) so that it looks closer in terms of optics. Even if the delegate counts crush him, there's only a handful in the media who actually get and actively discuss delegate math. Fighting to mitigate delegate damage on super tuesday is a losing battle in the long run. He needs to be able to get to a point where viability/visibility swing things towards him.
Of course, even it it works he's just in terrible shape from a delgate perspective, but if 2008 taught us anything a lost cause on delegates can and will keep "fighting" for months.
Of course, even it it works he's just in terrible shape from a delgate perspective, but if 2008 taught us anything a lost cause on delegates can and will keep "fighting" for months.
She can win MN.
GregLombardi
Member
Sanders also could be trying to get a powerful position in Clinton's cabinet or something similar. That's my bet.
I agree we need a more liberal justice, but Sandoval would be incredibly destructive to the GOP. According to sources close to McConnell, his calculus is that the GOP taking a hard stance against Obama plays to their base in the election and if they lose (even if they lose the Senate), they will still have a say in the matter and can get a moderate judge (he is assuming the Democrats won't use the nuclear option on SC nominees). So if that is really his view and the GOP won't hold hearing for any nominee, why not send them a qualified, Latino, Republican Governor for them to butcher to show their truly colors to the world. It would certainly be a gamble though.
Besides, if Hillary wins the election, Obama can withdraw the nomination and say that he is giving the GOP what they want by letting the next President choose the nominee and let Hillary choose someone as liberal as she wants.
But Sanders is getting no help in the media. No one is discussing delegate math and they don't have to, they just have to say its over. He got terrible coverage from the NV loss, i doubt losing all but 2 states that are overwhelmingly white is going to help the narrative that he has no chance and that he can only win white voters.
QuiteWhittle
Member
I don't think Sanders wants anything to do with Clinton or the rest of the Democrats after this primary run. I think he legitimately wants to win the nomination and that this path is the best his campaign has come up with after the loss in NV.
BoboBrazil
Member
What if they say yes to the nominees and that plan backfires? Then they can show how willing they are to work with him and it's been Obama's fault nothing has gotten done. Then we are stuck with a conservative judge for decades.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Sanders was always a long-shot candidate. To even get here he had to focus on a couple of key states. Its not a model that they can take broadly the the Super Tuesday states. Turn our Plan B is that there is no Plan B.
What do ya'll think of this article from The Nation?
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-donald-trumps-populism-is-dangerous/
It's talking about some of my concerns from yesterday (or day before). Then, I was talking about safe-blue states but is a place like Ohio, which has been crucial swing state the past several elections, really in danger of swinging to Trump?
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-donald-trumps-populism-is-dangerous/
It's talking about some of my concerns from yesterday (or day before). Then, I was talking about safe-blue states but is a place like Ohio, which has been crucial swing state the past several elections, really in danger of swinging to Trump?
RustyNails
Member
"Media should stop grading Marco on a curve. He didn't win a single state. He's a loser!"
lastflowers
Banned
"You don't get to just add your roommates failing test score to yours so you can say you got the best grade in the class, no the person who got an A got the best grade. I'm Donald Trump, putting the A back in America."
I don't think many other caucus states are outright closed to Democrats only.
Minnesota: https://www.dfl.org/about-our-party/caucuses-conventions/
- Open to everyone. Voter registration at the door.
Maine: http://www.mainedems.org/page/caucus-faq
- Open to everyone. Deadline to change from Republican and Green to Democrat was February 19th. Independents can register as Democrats at the doors.
Kansas: http://www.ksdp.org/caucus-2016/
- Open to everyone. Voter registration at the door.
Nebraska: http://nebraskacaucus2016.org/
- Open to everyone. Voter registration at the door.
Yes, I am surprised he hasn't gone there already -- but he has mostly ignored rubio so that might have something to do with it
I agree it won't work, I was only saying that there's a certain logic to it, especially considering the lack of other good options. Although to bolded is exactly why it's important that he concede states as opposed to maximize delegates. Fighting everywhere means losing everything but Vermont and maybe MA or MN. Conceding gives him a "fighting chance" in CO, MN, VT, OK, and MA. If it works, 5-6 is a much better loss than 2-9. Again, I don't think it will work. It's fairly desperate, in fact. But it might be the best of a set of bad options.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Overheard someone at work putting forward his theory that Trump has a VP pact with Joe Scarborough and that's why Joe has been so kind to him. I think it's funny that everytime someone realizes that there's a living person that hasn't been savage by Trump, the immediate assumption is Secret VP Pact.
The secret VP pact thing is incredibly stupid -- I mean they've already decided he gave it to Palin so how is that supposed to work? But as for Joe -- he was asked about that a few weeks ago and didn't deny he would be interested
http://www.hughhewitt.com/joe-scarborough-donald-trump-whether-joe-s-donald-ts-veep/
I don't know, the flip side of that is a big Cruz win might encourage him to stay in longer.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Why? As long as Rubio is third or lower, I don't think anything else matters.
Chezzymann
Member
As long as Cruz is kept below 50, yes
We all knew this was coming:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/senate-gop-decides-no-hearing-for-any-obama-scotus-nominee
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/senate-gop-decides-no-hearing-for-any-obama-scotus-nominee
BoboBrazil
Member
No way Cruz gets 50%. Most of Texas doesn't like the guy.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
SO WAS I
If they don't pay a price for doing this, it will be a very sad and depressing day for your country.
Black Republican
Member
not sure if true or not, but Breitbart saying Rubio is skipping this years CPAC
he's pretty much toast if he does that
he's pretty much toast if he does that
Veritigo_X
Member
Picture of McConnell coming out of that meeting:
http://www.theonion.com/article/mitch-mcconnell-has-hands-vocal-cords-removed-prev-52385
It's like they want to lose their majority?
BoboBrazil
Member
They found some quote from Biden in 1992 that was pushing for then to wait until the next president came in office, so that's going to be their excuse.
Indeed but I wouldn't bet on it hurting them, unless Obama plays his cards right. It's an unpopular move but you still have to win the messaging game
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked